Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which action had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation. On January 11, 2016, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted to the extent consistent with the findings and conclusions in the Report, and the Commissioner's final decision to deny benefits be affirmed. The time for filing objections has passed, and no objections have been filed.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED to the extent consistent with the findings and conclusions in the Magistrate's Report, and the Commissioner's final decision to deny benefits is AFFIRMED.

As noted by the Fifth Circuit, "[t]he advisory committee's note to Rule 72(b) states that, '[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Douglas v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.72(b) advisory committee's note (1983)) superceded by statute on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as stated in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc v. Griffin, No. 11-40446, 2012 WL 1071216, at *7 n.5 (5th Cir. April 2, 2012). --------

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 5th day of February, 2016.

/s/_________

Micaela Alvarez

United States District Judge

Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetext’s legal research suite.